Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. No. 284833 Jack M. Jacobson, Judge.
David S. Hernandez, in pro. per., for Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
OPINION
CORNELL, Acting P.J.
This is an appeal from the denial of a motion in a dissolution of marriage action that has been going on for 10 years. David S. Hernandez (husband) and Sherri L. Hernandez (wife) began divorce proceedings in 2001. There have been many proceedings since the initial filing, including enforcement actions. We believe the divorce was final and the marital estate was divided by 2004. Since then, husband has made numerous attempts to relitigate issues already determined. He is appealing the denial of his most recent motion.
Husband, who is representing himself, asks us to review everything that has occurred in the family court, including new evidence that he is presenting to us, make new credibility findings and factual determinations, and issue a new judgment. This we cannot do. Our role is very limited. We review only what occurred in the family court to determine if there is any legal error that affected the outcome of the case. We make no credibility or factual findings. Our review is limited to those decisions of the family court from which a timely appeal is taken.
Husband also has made our task very difficult by providing almost no record of the family court proceedings. For example, the record does not contain the motion the family law court denied. From the record before us, we cannot even determine whether this appeal is timely.
For these reasons, we will affirm the order from which husband appeals.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
We have been provided with only a partial clerk’s transcript. From this record we can deduce the following facts. Husband and wife began divorce proceedings sometime prior to June 2001. An order from these proceedings dated June 13, 2001, was attached as an exhibit to one of husband’s filings. It appears husband and wife have three children. Husband was ordered to pay child support, with the amount having varied over time.
By January 2004, the family residence had been sold. A court order indicates an agreement was reached between husband and wife on the disposition of the proceeds from that sale, as well as the division of some of the community property. Specifically, the order awarded wife the vehicle and ordered husband to sign whatever documents were necessary to transfer title to her.
On March 19, 2008, husband filed a motion pursuant to Family Code section 2556. This section gives the family law court continuing jurisdiction to award community property if the property has not been awarded previously to either spouse. Although not entirely clear, in this motion it appears husband felt he had been deprived of one-half of the proceeds from the sale of a van that was sold in 2001. He also claimed he was deprived of one-half of the proceeds from the sale of the vehicle that had been awarded to wife in 2004. He asserts the total he should have received from the sale of these two vehicles was $19,000.
All further statutory references are to the Family Code unless otherwise stated.
Section 2556 states in full: “In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage, for nullity of marriage, or for legal separation of the parties, the court has continuing jurisdiction to award community estate assets or community estate liabilities to the parties that have not been previously adjudicated by a judgment in the proceeding. A party may file a postjudgment motion or order to show cause in the proceeding in order to obtain adjudication of any community estate asset or liability omitted or not adjudicated by the judgment. In these cases, the court shall equally divide the omitted or unadjudicated community estate asset or liability, unless the court finds upon good cause shown that the interests of justice require an unequal division of the asset or liability.”
Husband also complained about a child support lien that had been deducted from his share of the proceeds from the sale of the community residence four years earlier. His argument, as we perceive it, was that the lien should have been paid with community funds, thus requiring wife’s share of community funds to pay one-half of the lien.
Husband also claimed that another man and his children lived in the community residence after he moved out and while wife had exclusive control over it. He argued that the additional persons living there should have been required to pay rent and that they caused additional wear and tear to the residence. He sought one-half of the fair market rental value of the family residence.
The motion was scheduled to be heard on April 23, 2008. The record, however, does not contain any order made as a result of the motion.
The next item in the record is a motion husband filed on October 23, 2008, “to Set Aside 04/23/08.” The motion was scheduled to be heard on November 19, 2008. We assume husband was seeking reconsideration of the ruling on the above referenced motion. His initial argument was that the trial court did not issue an order reflecting a credit he apparently received for back child support as a result of the sale of the van. We believe his complaint was that this failure caused the amount of child support in the records of the county agencies placing liens on his assets to overstate the amount of the liens.
Attached as an exhibit to this motion is what appears to be a minute order from the family court dated April 23, 2008. The minute order states that the tentative ruling was to deny the husband’s motion, but oral argument was requested, both parties argued, and the matter was taken under submission. A letter dated February 19, 2004, from counsel for wife to counsel for husband also was attached as an exhibit. In this letter counsel referred to an agreement to resolve the dispute about the proceeds from the sale of the van by not requiring husband to pay any child support for five months. There is nothing more in the record concerning these proceedings.
The next item in the record is a motion filed by husband on May 21, 2010, to disqualify a judge pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1. It appears the motion was denied, although no order is included in the record.
The next item in the record is an order continuing the hearing on a motion to “enforce marital prop (merits of motion[)]” to July 13, 2010. The order was signed and filed on June 15, 2010. It is unclear to which motion this order refers.
The next item in the record is an order dated July 13, 2010, which denied husband’s “Motion re: Credits.” The family court construed the motion as an untimely motion for reconsideration of the court’s April 24, 2008, minute order. It is unclear to which motion this order refers.
The next document in the file is husband’s notice of appeal, which was filed on July 27, 2010. The notice merely indicates husband is appealing from the July 13, 2010, judgment.
DISCUSSION
The above summary clearly shows that this appeal must be denied because it is impossible to ascertain the basis for the appeal or determine the matter on the merits.
Husband apparently is appealing from the order denying his motion issued on July 13, 2010. We do not know, however, what motion husband was making because it is not contained in the record. Instead, the only motion in the record is the motion for reconsideration filed by husband on October 23, 2008. It is extremely unlikely the trial court did not rule on this motion for almost two years, and, if it did so, it was incumbent on husband to provide in the record documents explaining this unusual delay. In the absence of any such documents, we must assume the July 13, 2010 order refers to another motion, which is not in the record. We cannot evaluate an order denying a motion that is not contained in the record. (Gee v. American Realty & Construction, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1416 (Gee).)
We are required to presume that the judgment or order of the trial court is correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) “‘“All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown. This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.” [Citation.]’ [Citations.]” (Ibid.) Accordingly, where the record is inadequate to permit meaningful review of appellant’s claims, the appellant has forfeited the issue and the trial court’s order must be affirmed. (Gee, supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at p. 1416.)
Husband’s opening brief does not assist us. In his brief husband refers to at least three motions pursuant to section 2556, yet the record contains only one such motion. He also complains of numerous items that apparently were decided to his dissatisfaction in the family court. These issues, however, arose no later than 2004 (sale of the house, division of proceeds). The time to appeal has long since expired. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104.) “The time for appealing a judgment is jurisdictional; once the deadline expires, the appellate court has no power to entertain the appeal. [Citation.]” (Van Beurden Ins. Services, Inc. v. Customized Worldwide Weather Ins. Agency, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 51, 56.)
Husband also argues that wife did not sell the van in 2001, but instead transferred it to another individual in 2007. There is nothing in the record to indicate this argument was presented to the family court. Nor is there anything in the record to support such a claim.
Husband submitted various documents with his filing entitled “Appellant’s Oral Argument.” Such documents are not part of the record and cannot be considered on appeal. Our review is limited to documents in the record. (People v. Neilson (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1529, 1534.) We note, however, that the documents submitted by husband do not support his argument.
Appellate courts review family court proceedings on direct appeal. (Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 688, 696 (Griset).) We do not accept evidence from the parties that has not been presented to the family court. (In re B.D. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1218, 1239-1240.)
Also, husband appears to be arguing new causes of action (fraud, forgery, perjury, misappropriation of marital assets) never presented to any other court, seeking a monetary judgment against wife and her attorney. This argument demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of our function. Once again, our function is to review proceedings that occurred in the lower court, and nothing more. (Griset, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 696.)
Finally, nowhere in his opening brief does husband cite to the record on appeal for facts to support his argument. It is the appellant’s obligation to demonstrate error by presenting meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and to the record. (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408.) We must reject conclusory claims of error, such as those presented by husband. (Ibid.)
In response to our letter to determine if husband desired to appear for oral argument, he filed a document entitled “Appellant’s Oral Argument.” In the document husband continues to argue issues that never were presented to the family court. He tries to introduce evidence never presented to the family court, seeks to adjudicate causes of action never presented to the family court, and asserts arguments lacking in factual or legal support.
Stating a legal proposition and then citing a case is not legal authority. The case must stand for the proposition asserted to constitute authority.
It is the appellant’s obligation to provide this court with a record adequate to evaluate his or her claims on appeal. The absence of a record adequate to determine if the family court committed reversible error prevents us from rendering a decision on the merits. (Wagner v. Wagner (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 249, 259.) This failure results in a forfeiture of the argument that the family court’s July 13, 2010, order was erroneous. (Ibid.)
CONCLUSION
There are a number of reasons we must affirm the order from which husband appeals, among them are: (1) the record is inadequate; (2) on many issues husband’s appeal is untimely; (3) husband seeks relief unavailable in this court; and (4) husband makes conclusory arguments without proper citations to authority and to the record. Any of the cited reasons, standing alone, compels us to reject husband’s arguments.
We are mindful that this outcome will not satisfy husband as it will not provide the relief he is seeking, but we must do only what the law allows.
DISPOSITION
The order from which husband appeals is affirmed. No costs are awarded.
WE CONCUR: GOMES, J., DAWSON, J.